Vol. 1 No. 14
We move on to a presentation concerning the possibility of a UN treaty on disability rights. We have with us Professor Gerard Quinn, Stefan Tromel and Dr. Kirsten Young. The presentation will take up to 25 minutes. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I remind everybody that while members are covered by privilege, others appearing before the committee are not. I welcome Professor Quinn who will present his group's presentation.
I thank the committee for the honour and privilege of addressing it today. I want to introduce the proposed UN treaty on disability, the reasoning behind it and its expected benefits. My colleague, Kirsten Young, from Landmine Survivors Network, Geneva, will then address the committee on why this treaty is so important in the developing world. My colleague from the European Disability Forum, Stefan Tromel, will then address the committee on why this treaty is a test for Europe's standing in the world and also a test for Ireland within Europe. I also lay before the committee a statement from the US national council on disability. Unfortunately, I have only two copies, one of which the Chair has, but I will refer to it later.
The drafting process on this treaty is already under way. Ireland was, to its credit, at the forefront of these developments until overtaken by Mexico in November 2001. Mexico deserves full praise for its commitment and persistence. The first session of the ad hoc group of states to “consider proposals for drafting a treaty” met last summer in New York. Despite many procedural advances, it failed to resolve the most crucial issue - whether to stop considering proposals to draft a treaty and to start the actual drafting process.
The 15 EU states adopt a common position on matters such as this within the UN system. For a variety of reasons, the position of the EU is crucial. The US, the world's natural leader on many of the issues involved, is unlikely to take the lead role for political reasons, yet it would probably support the EU if it took the lead. Ireland's recently reported opposition to the treaty within the powerful EU bloc could well hasten the collapse of the entire process. That is one reason this hearing is so important. In an important communication of policy statement the European Commission recently strongly favoured the drafting of such a treaty, but the last word rests with the member states.
There can be no denying that the human rights of persons with disabilities throughout the world is dire. About 500 million of the estimated 600 million people with disabilities live in developing countries. One could say that the rights problems of persons with disabilities are similar to those of all persons in developing countries. Up to a point this is true, yet many of these problems are accentuated for the simple reason that maltreatment and near total exclusion of persons with disabilities from the mainstream is still considered "normal" in many countries.
Human rights problems span all rights including liberty, due process, the right to life, freedom from torture, education and so forth. It would seem that many economic, social and cultural rights are used to fund the isolation of persons with disabilities. Human rights violations can themselves give rise to disability, for example, inadequate food and nutrition as well as violations of the laws of war.
Ordinarily one could rely on the political process to address the relevant issues. Yet people with disabilities tend to lack voice in the political process that is truly commensurate with their numbers. This is well attested. Many people with disabilities even lack an effective right to vote throughout the developing world. It is small wonder therefore that change comes slowly. The US Congress specifically alluded to this structural political weakness in terms of the Americans with Disabilities Act - ADA. Furthermore, the champions of disability rights are fragmented and weak. Especially in the developing world, the disability NGO sector is relatively unskilled at using the parliamentary process to effectuate structural change, much less at using the legal process to challenge abuses.
There have been many welcome normative developments in UN treaty law. In our recent study commissioned by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights we noted several positive normative developments, yet these developments are unlikely to yield concrete multiplier effects. Why? The main supply side problem is that the relevant treaty monitoring bodies are unlikely to be able to focus consistently on the issue due to the pressure of their work. Even if they could afford the luxury, they lack any membership with expertise in the field.
The main demand side problem is that the disability NGOs are not tooled up to use the existing machinery to its optimum. How could they be? They are highly impoverished and have to split their focus among six different treaties. It is much better to focus on immediate priorities like securing better services locally for their members. This micro-rationality is ultimately self-defeating since the key to acquiring these services is a general acceptance of the rights of persons with disabilities. No one could blame NGOs for their local focus. Despite some recent signs of progress, even the more general human rights NGOs take very little interest.
During the 1980s a world programme of action, WPA, for people with disabilities was put in place by the UN General Assembly. Just one part of it dealt with equal opportunities for people with disabilities. Nothing much happened. An expert panel convened by the UN decided in 1987 that a new treaty was needed. Both Italy and Sweden proposed drafts.
This proposal was rejected not on the merits, but because of "treaty fatigue" in the system at that time. A compromise was reached in 1993 where the UN General Assembly passed a landmark resolution entitled the UN Standard Rules of the Equalisation of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities - SRE. An office of special rapporteur was set up under the SRE to report on and monitor developments. Until recently this post was held by a distinguished former Swedish Government Minister, Bengt Lindqvist. Ten years on, not much has happened despite the Herculean efforts of Mr. Lindqvist. The UN special rapporteur has himself concluded that a thematic treaty is necessary. Indeed, he was the main author of the Swedish draft text in the 1980s.
What will a treaty do to address all of the above? This is a fair question. The proposed treaty on disability would be the fourth so-called thematic treaty to focus on the interface between general human rights standards and their application in the context of a specific group. The existing thematic treaties cover women, children and racial minorities. As is the case with all these treaties, the main purpose is not to add new law but to clarify and sharpen the focus of existing law in the context of a forgotten or vulnerable group. This is to the benefit of states as well as civil society. There are many benefits to a treaty. First, a treaty could lend validity and moral authority to the felt grievances of persons with disabilities. It is one thing to suffer abuse in isolation; it is another to link that suffering to a sense of injustice and to invoke the language of rights to bring about change. Second, the very process of drafting the treaty could ignite within the disabled community a heightened sense of their rights - rights which are held in common with all others on the planet. This is a very real prospect if the process is allowed to go forward because of the procedural innovations I mentioned earlier. NGOs from Kinshasa to Kinvara will be allowed to participate.
Third, any treaty should have a treaty monitoring body. For the first time ever, there will be space within the UN system for genuine human rights expertise to grow in the field of disability. As this expertise grows in authority and credibility, the other and more mainstream human rights monitoring bodies can be expected to pay much more attention to the issue. This happened to women's issues after the adoption of CEDAW. Fourth, if the treaty was to contain an individual or group complaints mechanism, then one could expect the relevant case law or jurisprudence to sharpen over the years to the benefit of states as well as civil society. Fifth, it is important to remember that international human rights law is not an end in itself; it is useful inasmuch as it contributes to domestic developments. A treaty such as the proposed disability treaty would galvanise civil society. It would provide language and a focal point for pressure groups to congregate. In the language of sociologists, it would provide a focal point around which fragmented interest groups could aggregate their interests and then effectively articulate them in the political process.
In my opinion, the proposed treaty would help to anchor in place a positive dynamic of change within developing countries. Ideally, it should lead to a proofing of development aid to make sure that it does not compound the exclusion of the disabled. It should lead to an increased focus on the need to enhance the capacity of disability groups to participate in the political process through programmes of democratisation which are sponsored by many countries. All of these are necessary to bring about change. However, without the gravitational force of a treaty, such change is less likely to occur.
With respect to developed countries, such a treaty could powerfully reinforce positive trends already under way. We in Ireland need not fear this - indeed there is much we have to showcase through it. What matters for both sets of countries alike is that we are committed to achieving tangible progress consistent with local circumstances. Ireland's reported position within the EU 15 could easily jeopardise this process. I ask the committee to recommend to Government that it should allow a positive EU common position to be adopted not grudgingly because it has to, but willingly because the pursuit of justice for all is in our character and destiny as a small nation. I refer to the submission of the US National Council:
Disability is a global issue that cuts across every boundary, social, economic and geography. The credibility of this treaty process depends on all nations gathering the political will to push ahead together, especially those such as the United States and Ireland who have succeeded in guaranteeing rights for their citizens. The progress and momentum achieved at this point are encouraging but far from safe. Ireland has an important role to play in ensuring that people with disabilities will not again be cast aside by the human rights system but instead will be permanently integrated into its legal framework. A unified EU will send the message to the world more loudly and more clearly than perhaps any other voice.
When Ireland declared its independence it did so on a promise to cherish all the children of the nation equally. We should never forget that we are the descendants of those who fought for justice and freedom for all. Now the eyes of Europe and the world are upon us. We can turn our back on them or we can re-dedicate ourselves to the process and, through it, to the developing world.
I am grateful for the opportunity to address the committee and I wish to share my organisation's views with the members on this important issue. Landmine Survivors Network is an international NGO that works to help landmine victims and their families recover from trauma through an integrated rights-based programme of peer counselling, health care and economic and social integration.
We work in six developing countries and I will address two issues in this presentation. First, why the developing world needs a convention and, second, why Ireland has a responsibility to the developing world in helping it meet this objective.
From a purely numerical perspective, of the approximately 600 million people worldwide with a disability, over two thirds live in the developing world. Only 2% of disabled children in the developing world will ever have access to education. The problem of lack of services in the developing world, particularly in post-conflict societies, is well known and widely understood. Dealing with the immediate needs of post-injury care and the longer term need for ongoing rehabilitation is of paramount importance.
Beyond the lack of services and medical and rehabilitative care, there is another component to the problem that war wounded and other persons with disabilities face. Let us imagine for a moment that we are miraculously able to provide persons with disabilities all that is necessary in the area of physical and even psychological care. What can be expected to happen to a person who has received all the rehabilitation possible for their disability and now must find a way to build a life which is integrated into society so that they can continue or pursue education and be accepted on the same terms as other people?
The co-founders of Landmine Survivors Network are both landmine survivors. They initially focused on service provision and care support but quickly realised that this approach was addressing only a few of the issues facing survivors. The developing world, particularly in post-conflict situations, offers opportunities for rebuilding civil society and government. This was recently highlighted by James Wolfensohn, president of the World Bank, who noted that donors financed significant infrastructural projects in developing countries but all too often did not include accessibility requirements such as the reconstruction efforts in Honduras after Hurricane Mitch. This results in recreating inaccessible environments which could have been avoided with little or no additional cost.
Properly structured development aid programmes would encourage appropriate design standards which are critical to reducing and eventually eliminating poverty in the developing countries. The question for governments and civil society and for LSN is to ask what the framework is to ensure the inclusion of large numbers of persons with disabilities in the new society. Should we dedicate energy and resources to the critical issues of disability law and policy? Our conclusion was a resounding "yes". One of the most fundamental challenges for us has been how to transform the policies and the attitudes that drive these policies which exclude persons with disabilities from access to social, educational and economic opportunities. Often family and community members view persons with disabilities as a burden and think that they are not capable of being educated or of making a contribution to society. Ultimately, the stigma is reinforced by social inequality which leads to discrimination on so many levels. The result is that persons with disabilities are devalued by society and often internalise their status accordingly. This attitude is perhaps one of our greatest barriers to the effective implementation of our goals of social and economic integration. Therefore, our work must also be seen in the wider context of the international human rights legal framework, which provides the core principles underlying disability rights. Unfortunately, what we have found is that the existing legal system is inadequate to support the mission of integration and fails to look at human rights in the context of disability in any meaningful way. While the international human rights legal framework applies to the some 600 million persons with disabilities, the treaties that create the framework do not specifically state that they protect persons with disabilities with the small exception of Article 23 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, nor is there an international treaty specific to person with disabilities.
Professor Quinn pointed out that there are certain populations that require specific and specialised treaties such as children, women and racial minorities. While the adoption of the 1993 UN Standard Rules on the Equalisation of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities was a significant step in changing the way we think about and approach the topic of disability, the rules are not legally binding, are not well known and are little used in practice. As a result, societies have frequently failed to recognise that persons with disabilities are entitled to the same rights as all people and, accordingly, violations of the rights of persons with disabilities go unnoticed and un-addressed. This invisibility has led to the demand for a convention of the rights of persons with disabilities.
Given the deficiencies I have described, the development of an international convention will provide an immediate statement of international legal accountability regarding the human rights of persons with disabilities; clarify the content of human rights principles and their application in the context of persons with disabilities; provide an authoritative and global reference point for domestic law and policy initiatives; and include mechanisms for more effective monitoring of the rights of persons with disabilities.
As other convention development processes have shown, there are many ancillary benefits, such as awareness raising and the prioritisation of the rights of persons with disabilities in national and international agendas, which in turn will stimulate awareness of disability.
The second question I would like to address is why Ireland should care about whether there is a convention that can be used by the developing world. Ireland itself has answered that question:
Ireland's foreign policy, like that of all countries, bears the imprint of its history. We have first-hand experience of colonisation. The human cost of poverty and under-development is engraved on the national memory. This shared legacy with developing countries has helped to create a strong bond of understanding and empathy.
This quote is from Ireland's groundbreaking overseas development aid strategy, which has significantly increased Ireland's funding for overseas development aid in an effort "to reduce poverty and inequality". Development policy forms an integral part of Ireland's wider foreign policy, which includes human rights and, accordingly, the human rights of persons with disabilities. Poverty is the main cause of disability, and persons with disabilities form part of the most impoverished group. James Wolfensohn has stated:
Unless disabled people are brought into the development mainstream, it will be impossible to cut poverty in half by 2015 to give every girl or boy the chance to achieve primary education by the same date - goals agreed to by the more than 180 world leaders at the UN Millennium Summit in September 2000.
In an effort to meet these important objectives, Ireland has undertaken innovative projects such as Ireland Aid's project on strengthening the rights protection of the disabled in China. Ireland has shown leadership on human rights and disability within the UN system, particularly the Commission on Human Rights. Given this commitment and leadership internationally on issues of human rights and development, it is quite clear that Ireland should only take one position, namely to provide unequivocal support for convention. This convention is an essential legal tool with which we can work to ensure that persons with disabilities have a chance to claim their rights and address what the Minister for State, Deputy Tom Kitt, has described as the clear link between disability, poverty, and social exclusion. I again thank the members of the committee for this opportunity to make a presentation and for their kind attention.
I thank members for this invitation to address the committee today on such an important issue. I welcome the initiative of this public hearing, which is a good example that should be followed by other EU member states.
The European Disability Forum, EDF, which I represent, is the umbrella organisation for disability organisations in the European Union. Through our more than 100 national and European members we represent the interests of the 37 million disabled people in the European Union and, increasingly, also in the wider Europe. EDF is acknowledged by all key stakeholders at EU level as the representative voice of disabled people.
It is our mission to promote the human rights of disabled people by trying to ensure that all relevant EU initiatives take into account the rights and interests of disabled people. One of our slogans is "Nothing about disabled people without disabled people." At our annual general assembly in 1999, it was decided to propose to the EU institutions that they declare 2003 the European Year of People with Disabilities.
The European Disability Movement received with great excitement the news of the rather unexpected decision taken by the UN General Assembly in November 2001 to set up a committee to consider proposals for a UN convention to protect and promote the rights of disabled people. The EDF general assembly held in May 2002 adopted a resolution by unanimity in which EDF members stated their wholehearted support for this process. There was and is no doubt among our members that the current UN human rights machinery is not sufficiently protecting the rights of disabled people.
As has been established for other groups, a thematic convention is needed, which will not produce new rights, but ensure that the generally accepted human rights are effectively enjoyed by disabled people. EDF took part at the first meeting of the ad hoc committee and co-operated closely with the other international and national disability NGOs present at the meeting.
From our point of view, the role of disability NGOs in this process has to be a key one and therefore the decision taken during the first ad hoc committee meeting on NGO participation in the process - a decision proposed and defended by the EU delegation - was more than welcome.
EDF's main contribution to this process will be to seek to ensure that the EU position in this process will be supportive of the demands of the European Disability Movement. We have for instance contributed to a recent opinion adopted by the European Economic and Social Committee and are currently working closely with Liz Lynne, MEP, who is preparing a European Parliament report on this initiative.
As Dr. Young mentioned, the EU delegation played a major role at the first meeting of the ad hoc committee and should again play a major role at the second meeting. This strong role requires prior unanimous agreement among all EU member states, to allow the country holding the Presidency, currently Greece, to really contribute actively to the process.
We have been monitoring the developments in the European Council, where a working group exists which brings together the representatives of all member states to discuss this issue. We are aware that the position of EU member states has been changing during the past year. Initially, very few member states had a clear position on this issue. The issue was mainly dealt with in the foreign affairs ministries with no consultation with ministries in charge of disability issues.
Through the active work of our national members, all governments were approached to inform them that the disability movement strongly supports this process and expects from its governments a favourable position on this initiative. We can say that our work has contributed to shift the position in all those countries where the position was negative or unclear.
On 7 and 8 April, the European Disability Forum organised a meeting in Madrid in order to increase knowledge and awareness on this issue among disability organisations throughout Europe. More than 130 participants from 30 European countries took part in this meeting. Coinciding with this meeting, participants at the meeting were made aware of the article published in The Irish Times on the position of the Irish Government on this issue. The Irish active involvement and even leadership in disability issues within the United Nations is well known among the disability movement and therefore this news was received with great surprise and concern by the participants at the meeting.
This led to a unanimous decision being taken at the meeting to send a letter to the Department of Foreign Affairs to request an urgent change in this position. The urgency is required because the next meeting of the UN ad hoc committee will start in mid-June and failure to arrive at a common EU position ahead of this meeting could have a negative impact on the process.
The disability movement expects that it will be clearly stated at the next meeting of the ad hoc committee that the outcome of the process will be a convention. We also want the next meeting to allow a thorough discussion on the content of the convention. In the contribution presented to the Council working group, referred to previously, EDF also proposed that a working group be set up with the mandate to advance the work in between the annual ad hoc committee meetings and which will be the focal point of all contributions to the process, including those coming from the disability movement.
We are aware that the outcome of today's public hearing will be a set of recommendations to the Government. We anticipate that the first and foremost recommendation will be to ensure the Government sends a clear signal that it supports a positive EU position on the UN convention to allow the EU to continue to play a leading role in this process. The Irish and European disability movements expect no less than this. Who could explain a negative EU position on this issue just now, during the European Year of People with Disabilities, which has put the rights-based approach to disability as a central element? We would also like to suggest that a recommendation is made to ensure the active participation of the Irish disability NGO movement in this process. The final text adopted at the first ad hoc committee meeting included a call to all UN member states to include representatives of the disability movement in their delegations to the next meeting. We believe that Ireland should set a good example.
The process which will lead to the UN convention will be complex and take its time. It requires sufficient time to ensure a relevant outcome, but it is also important that there is a permanent focus and monitoring of the process. We consider it vital, therefore, that the various EU governments establish a permanent dialogue with the disability movement on this issue to facilitate a fluent and structured dialogue on this landmark initiative. The public hearing today is a good example of how things can and should be done. We suggest that similar meetings could be held on an annual basis to follow up the process and to signal to Government and to the disability movement the political interest in and support of this committee for this exciting process. I thank the members of the committee again for this invitation and for their attention.
Thank you, Mr. Tromel. I am sure my colleagues will have some questions and comments. First, however, I have a question for Professor Quinn. When he wrote to me some five or six weeks ago suggesting this hearing, I was very happy to oblige as I appreciated the merits of his arguments. Since then, as indicated by his article in The Irish Times a fortnight ago and his comments today, it appears that matters have taken a negative turn in that he is now arguing that the Government’s position has changed, that there has been some form of climb-down or reversal of policy. I have found it difficult to get any clarification on that aspect of Government policy. What evidence is there to suggest that the Government may be, at best, moving forward in an unwilling fashion or unwilling to move forward at all?
When I approached the Chairman some weeks ago, my main purpose was to arrange a hearing so that we could brief members, particularly backbenchers, on the importance of this development and get their support to ensure that positive momentum would be maintained. However, in the intervening period, there was a report in The Irish Times to the effect that the European Disability Forum had written to the National Disability Authority in Dublin, expressing its dismay at the reported position of Ireland in COHON, the EU Council of Ministers on human rights issues. I believe the NDA subsequently wrote to the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Tom Kitt, requesting clarification. This negativity came into the public realm through that route, so to speak. I have no independent way of verifying the position of the Government. I suggest that pertinent questions be put to the relevant Government Departments in this regard.
The information available to us, by way of briefing from the Department of Foreign Affairs, is that Ireland will continue to push for a common EU position. Obviously, the delegation is very anxious that there should be a common EU position and is somewhat fearful as to the current Irish attitude. Has there been any communication from Government sources on the issue in terms of a response to the correspondence from the European Disability Forum to the Department of Foreign Affairs?
No, we have not received any reply to our letter to the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt. However, I can confirm that, at the last COHON working group meeting on 28 February, Ireland was the only country which openly stated its opposition to the position paper proposed by the Greek Presidency in support of a convention. Such meetings are confidential but, as part of our lobbying role, we obtained some inside information to the effect——
That there was some degree of opposition?
——that Ireland was clearly stating its opposition at that meeting to having an EU position.
In a different forum, the UN Commission on Human Rights is concluding a meeting today in Geneva. Ireland has always supported - indeed, sponsored - the human rights and disability resolution but did not do so this year for the first time. When I left Geneva, it was not even clear that Ireland would add its name to the list of co-sponsors of that resolution. That is a very different position compared to the Irish Government's past position. The draft text of the resolution is not necessarily very strong in relation to the convention. I see that as a pulling back on Ireland's position on disability.
I am shocked to hear that Ireland is dragging its feet on this issue. I am glad the delegation has come here today to make the case and to highlight what appears to be an outrageous situation for our country. I am alarmed by the indications that a position taken in our name could actually lead to a collapse of the entire process. The delegation has correctly emphasised that a common EU position is the normal approach in relation to international conventions. The very notion that Ireland could be instrumental in collapsing a progressive common position is utterly alarming. Beyond that, I am angry to discover what has been done in our name by our representatives. For that reason, this is a most important meeting. I believe there is strong support from this committee for a positive and progressive position in relation to an international convention to protect the rights and dignity of people with disabilities.
To cut to the chase, the key issue is the position being adopted in our name abroad, without our knowledge. I have a very simple suggestion. If, as I understand from a report in the Irish Examiner this morning, the opposition is coming from the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the Minister of State at that Department or the Department itself, we should demand that the Minister come before this committee to explain his position as to what he is doing or saying, in our name, at EU and UN level, in relation to this hugely important issue. In my view, the most positive outcome of this meeting, apart from highlighting the importance of this issue and the appalling position which is apparently being presented abroad in our name, would be a decision to seek the attendance of the Minister at a meeting of this committee to explain his position. If possible, we should also explain to the Minister the reason we, as Oireachtas Members representing the people, wish to have a positive approach adopted by Ireland in the run-up to the development of an EU common position before the June meeting. That is my proposal.
I welcome the opportunity to make a few points. At the beginning of this meeting, I asked, very deliberately, that it be noted that the background document provided to the committee was from the Department of Foreign Affairs and there was no document from either the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform or the Department of Finance. I made that request for a very particular reason. In the discussion in the media, particularly in The Irish Times, both in the articles of Fintan O’Toole and the letters from Mr. Gerry White of Trinity College law school, a fundamental issue has been raised. It is suggested in that correspondence that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is opposed to the extension of social and economic rights to the same status as civil and political rights. However, there is more to it than that, which is an important point. I support Deputy Jim O’Keeffe’s proposal to ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to come to the committee to explain his point of view. We also need to ask the Minister for Finance to attend. I do not intend to waste my time putting down questions and getting very vague answers and I will come to this matter shortly.
We need to ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform whether he accepts a ruling from the Minister for Finance that because there is a resource implication in the acceptance or extension of a right, such a right should not be acknowledged. This is the present position with regard to domestic legislation. It is being brought to European Union meetings and is subverting a position much heralded and announced as far back during the tenure of the former Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy O'Donnell, with regard to taking initiatives in regard to the new convention. The Department of Finance's opinion is crucial. We also need to resolve the justice issue as between social and economic rights and civil and political rights. I want an answer on this.
The function of Deputies and Senators at this committee is to ensure some accountability. I asked two or more Dáil questions on this issue. One question related to the UN committee and asked what consultation there would be with the NGOs and what involvement they would have. I want to ask a straight question: Which Department speaks for us at the UN committee? My understanding is that for a while it was the Department of Foreign Affairs but I have been told - I would be delighted to be corrected if I am wrong - that the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform is seeking a role in regard to some of the meetings, and that it represented a different position from Ireland's opening position.
I also believe that the hand of the Department of Finance is visible in the attitude being taken by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. I received two very bland replies to my Dáil questions. The replies contained the usual chit-chat, that the Department would be speaking to people and that it hoped those people would be very courageous and go forwards and backwards and then forward again. It was the usual blather to evade answering the question. That is why I must put the matter very directly today.
Another question we should put when and if the Ministers come before the committee concerns what position we will take at the June meeting, the importance of which has been much heralded. Will our position be the opening position or the amended position? Will the Department of Foreign Affairs tell the European Council and the UN meeting that it is sorry, but its opening position had been idealistic and it is really governed by the opinions of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, which adopts the reactionary position that rights should not be extended? That Department in turn is acting on the advice of the Department of Finance that we should not extend any rights that have a resource implication. It is time to speak very plainly about this issue.
I want to add a point of detail in regard to a point made on behalf of the Landmine Survivors Network. It concerned me greatly to read in the media that among the very rare refusals of permission to use our air facilities at Shannon were a number of refusals on the basis that land mines were being transported. This was in compliance with the Ottawa Convention - referred to by some as the Diana convention - under which there are no derogations and which clearly prohibits the production, distribution and sale of land mines. It is sad and disgusting to hear that the only refusals granted in regard to the recent outbreak of war in the Middle East were on the basis that the aeroplanes were carrying land mines to the conflict zone. I support Deputy O'Keeffe's suggestion and ask him to perhaps consider an amendment which would also include the other eminence grise.
I welcome the observations and questions. It is the nature of the Commission on Human Rights that it is not in the public domain. However, we have a right to know what is being said in our name. With respect to the putative arguments on cost and economic, social and cultural rights, we have not heard these arguments so it is very difficult to know what to engage with. This is perhaps another example of a need to get the issue in the open in order that we can have a rational, non-ideological debate about its merits, remembering all the time that 500 million of the 600 million live in developing world countries. I am simply hypothesising but perhaps the biggest impact on this country will be in regard to the way in which we conceive, design and implement our development aid budget.
I join with others in welcoming the delegation, particularly Professor Quinn from NUI Galway. I am delighted he is taking such a lead role in this together with Dr. Kristen Young and Mr. Stefan Tromel.
With regard to Ireland's position, I am in a minority on the committee in representing the Government point of view, although I have not been briefed by the Ministers in this regard as I am a substitute today. Nonetheless, I support the statement of Dr. Young that Ireland has shown leadership in the UN system regarding human rights and disability, particularly on the Commission on Human Rights. Reference was also made to the clear link made by the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Tom Kitt, between disability, poverty and social exclusion. I agree with this and think that the Government should be to the forefront of EU development in this regard.
Speaking in a personal capacity as a Senator and former Fianna Fáil Minister, I feel we should be to the fore in developing rights in regard to disability. Ireland is in a better position in this regard than countries which produce land mines or perpetrate cluster bombing. We have nothing to fear. Of all the countries in the world, we have never engaged in the production of armaments. As a former Minister with responsibility for trade, I know that this was an area we could not get involved in because we do not produce bombs. It is not in the Constitution.
We should be to the fore in bringing forward these rights at the European Union and the UN and I would be more than taken aback if the points raised have any accuracy. It would be appropriate for the relevant Minister to come in, but I feel that this issue should be dealt with by the Department of Foreign Affairs rather than the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. I have always felt that the latter Department should not be involved in this area. If any Department should be involved in regard to the rights of disability, it should be the Department of Health and Children rather than the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Nonetheless, I would expect the Department of Foreign Affairs to be the lead Department in regard to the UN treaty on the human rights of people with disabilities.
Why does Professor Quinn feel there is resistance from countries to bringing in the UN treaty? Is it that they feel they cannot sign up if they are producing land mines? I have visited Bosnia-Herzegovina, which is absolutely littered with land mines. People are being disabled daily around the world because there are billions of unexploded and undiscovered land mines. Very few resources go towards tracing land mines, and no resources whatsoever come from the countries which produce them for whatever macabre reasons. The resistance comes from those countries.
Speaking from a Fianna Fáil perspective, I favour a UN treaty on the human rights of persons with disabilities, with European Union approval. The Fianna Fáil position in this regard should be reiterated. It will be a clear decision of the Government, not of any individual Minister, to choose a particular line of action. It has to be a Government decision. I would like the decision to be in favour of a UN treaty for persons with disabilities and I believe such a decision will be made. Ireland should be the leading EU member state in this regard and we should not drag our heels. Anybody who has heard this contribution will know that I have made clear my personal view. I hope we can bring in the Minister to discuss these issues.
I thank Senator Leyden for his insight into life within a coalition Government.
I thank the Chair for allowing me to contribute. Although I am not a member of this committee, I am interested in the matter under discussion. I welcome the three members of the delegation and I thank them for their enlightening presentations. I would like to ask a number of questions.
I managed to raise this issue with the Minister for Foreign Affairs in the Dáil before the House went into recess. I pressed the Minister strongly on this matter during Question Time. My impression is that while the Department of Foreign Affairs favours this convention, resistance is coming from elsewhere. Am I right that the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform represents this country at this convention as it is an equality matter rather than a foreign affairs issue?
I do not have a copy of the transcript, but I recall that the Minister, Deputy Cowen, told me in the Dáil that there are concerns about the possible implications of this convention on national law. As we all know, two Bills have been promised in relation to disability issues - an education for persons with disabilities Bill and a disabilities Bill. We have been told that the Bills will be published before the summer and that there will be time for discussion before they are debated in the Oireachtas. Would the possible UN treaty on disability rights have implications for our national law? We have had problems in relation to trying to enshrine the rights of persons with disabilities into law. The last Bill that came before the House in relation to this matter was withdrawn, if I remember correctly, partly because people were not allowed to vindicate their rights in the courts. What implications, if any, will there be in relation to our legislative proposals if we sign this convention? Is it possible that a delay could justify the resistance that appears to be coming from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, which will sponsor the disability Bill?
What timescale is involved in relation to the possible UN convention? Is there a deadline by which agreement has to be reached? How close are we to such a deadline? I assume that the European Union has to act as a bloc. It seems, from what has been reported, that Ireland is the main resister to the EU going ahead and agreeing a common position. If the EU is unable to agree a common position as a result of Ireland's reported resistance, is it possible that the entire convention could fail and not occur? Fine Gael favours a convention and wants it to go ahead, ratified by Ireland. As my colleagues have already said, it is appalling that we have reached this situation. I call on the Government to clarify its position immediately. Clarification is seriously needed. I am glad the Fianna Fáil Party is onside as regards this matter. Perhaps the problem lies with the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, which has a responsibility, through the Minister, to clarify the situation immediately.
I thank the Deputy. I distilled at least four concrete questions from his contribution. The Department of Foreign Affairs always fronts the delegation, but it has to co-ordinate Ireland's position with the various Departments. The composition of the delegation is exclusively a matter for the Department of Foreign Affairs. It is not unknown for representatives of other Departments to be part of the official delegation. I remind the committee that the most recent report of the ad hoc committee, produced last summer following the first session of the drafting process, recommended that persons with disabilities be included on the national delegations. Many Governments, including that in the UK, have decided to do so.
The European Union does not have to present a monolithic face or act as a bloc, although it is highly desirable that it does so. If the EU does not reach a common position, it fragments and the power of its voice on the international stage is diluted. The US national council said in its submission that a unified EU will send a message to the world more loudly and more clearly than perhaps any other voice in this process. It is really saying that the US will back Europe strongly if Europe comes forward strongly. If we do not come forward strongly, there is every possibility that the entire process will collapse.
The third question asked by the Deputy relates to implications for national law. One must always remind oneself that the purpose of a thematic treaty is not to pile on new obligations, but to refine, clarify and sharpen existing international legal obligations. I may be shooting in the dark, but it is possible that some people's problem with this treaty is that it reveals our existing international legal obligations. One will not know if this is true until one questions the right people. I am not one of those who say that the proposed treaty will ratchet up incredibly the pressure on states. This is particularly true of states with a reasonably good track record, such as Ireland, on balance. Ireland is acknowledged as an EU leader in this field. It is frustrating, given that so much political capital has been invested in this area, that we walked away at a crucial moment.
The question of the timescale is a very interesting one. Treaties such as this one are normally negotiated through the UN Commission on Human Rights in Geneva over a period of six or seven years. It is often an open-ended, inclusive, participatory and expertly conducted process. Ireland would have preferred if such a process had been followed in this case. A draft paragraph in the resolution we proposed to the human rights commission on this issue in 2000 asked it to begin the process, or at least to consider the commencement of the process, of drafting such a treaty. That was Ireland's preferred route.
Mexico blindsided everybody in the General Assembly, to a certain extent, and succeeded in getting a resolution passed in November 2001 which sidelined the Irish efforts. The fact that the Mexican resolution has been passed by the General Assembly meant that the process started in the Commission for Social Development area of the UN system. The fact that treaties are drafted faster in that area may be an advantage or a disadvantage. It may be a disadvantage as there may not be an appropriate human rights expertise mix in the content of the treaty, but I believe that the Commission for Social Development is co-operating very well with the UN Commission on Human Rights in Geneva.
My best guess in relation to a timeframe would be four or five years. The best possible outcome from the next session, in New York in June, would not be to begin examining, tailoring and drafting the individual rights, but to make the decision to start drafting the treaty. The best way for this to happen is for agreement to be reached, in principle, to convene a committee of experts and to ask it to come up with a draft within three years. This would have the effect of re-politicising the issue and bringing it back to the ad hoc committee to convene a diplomatic conference. This has been done before and would be the ideal way of proceeding on this occasion, as it would remove the matter from the political realm and place it in the expert realm. This would create space for the committee to return, perhaps within three years, and hopefully conclude the matter at that stage. I hope I have answered the Deputy's questions.
How does Professor Quinn envisage that it will proceed if that is not possible as a consequence of the EU problems? Will the entire project collapse or will it be delayed for a certain amount of time?
I believe it is possible that it will collapse this summer as some states may say that a treaty is not needed. Perhaps we should improve the UN standard rules. It must be said that the rapporteur under the UN standard rules has come out publicly in favour of a treaty and some states will agree to this. However, they are isolated and if a major block comes forward and steam rolls the measure through people will fall behind it, particularly the United States of America whose political and moral clout on these issues should not be underestimated. This is rightly so whatever one may think of its other policies.
The Barcelona declaration on disabilities has been warmly welcomed and adopted by the Government and local authorities. While it is a separate issue, is the background of Ireland Incorporated not inconsistent with delaying the UN charter? Something seems to be missing here. The previous position of Ireland on disability rights must be good.
I want to be clear on some of the proposals Keith and I made earlier. Those of us on the sub-committee are in favour of Ireland taking a positive view of a common EU position and of a convention. I propose that the sub-committee notes that and makes a formal proposal to the joint committee in that regard. The committee should hear the views of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Minister for Finance by way of explanation afterwards. I do not want the committee's decision to be conditional on any presentation by either Minister. If they have a reservation, let it be discussed after we have made our decision. I propose that the sub-committee makes a decision this morning which it submits to the main committee. The main committee should then be in a position to take a decision well in advance of the June meeting. My worry is that if we try to set up meetings on the basis of prior consultation or conditions, we will be strung out.
I second that.
There is a unanimous view across the table that the sub-committee wants Ireland to be seen as leading efforts rather than following reluctantly. The Deputy's point has been noted as a formal position of the sub-committee. However, queries have been raised about where Departments stand and an answer will be sought to Senator Leyden's question. The Ministers in question must be brought before the committee if possible. There is a certain urgency in view of the fact that the ad hoc committee meets again in mid-June. We will have a meeting in May and I suggest we adopt Deputy Jim O’Keeffe’s proposal to invite the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Kitt, and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, to attend. Deputy Michael Higgins used a colourful term for the Minister for Finance earlier, which we note. Is the proposal agreed? Agreed.
I heard Professor Quinn say earlier that one of the possible reasons for the delay is that it might show up our difficulties here with rights for people with disabilities. Can he elaborate on what he meant by that and explain what some of those difficulties are?
I agree that the Irish record is excellent overall in terms of political parties. Fianna Fáil produced a superb policy document in the mid-1990s in which former Minister of State, Deputy Mary Wallace, was very much involved. Former Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy O'Donnell, supported the idea of a convention publicly some two and a half years ago. I hope earnestly that the current scenario is a minor blip on the radar screen and that we can quickly resume supporting the initiative while regaining some of the leadership role we have taken in recent years.
This convention is not the one which causes problems. If there are problems, they are rooted in our existing international legal obligations. There may be a long-term issue in terms of trying to adjust our domestic legal order to the international cosmopolitan legal order while preserving maximum policy space and room to manoeuvre domestically. International law creates that space. What is happening is symptomatic of a failure to have a rational argument on the issues. We are simply looking at the ether and some of the ideological perspectives coming forward. Let us hear the arguments, after which we can deal with them in the open.
Is the Barcelona declaration not of significance given that it is being promoted around Ireland at the moment and that each local authority is adopting it?
Its significance is that Ireland is positive about the issues overall. Mr. Tromel is intimately acquainted with the Barcelona declaration.
The Barcelona declaration is a voluntary commitment and Ireland is the only EU member state implementing it. Not even Spain, from which I come, is implementing it. The Barcelona declaration is a poster and a good voluntary approach, but it cannot be compared with other approaches. It shows that Ireland is committed to disability issues which is why the current position came as a complete surprise to us. We have made greater efforts in other countries with a background of putting problems on——
It was a shock to me.
The colour of our money on this issue will be apparent in how we respond to the treaty negotiations and the role we take therein. I thank Professor Quinn, Mr. Tromel and Dr. Young for their attendance this morning and what transpired to be a timely presentation. We note the urgency of the matter. The sub-committee realises what it must do and has made a policy decision to advocate strongly through the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs that the Government takes a lead role at EU level in pushing towards a treaty. Hopefully, at our next meeting we will be able to inquire of various Ministers the manner in which they are attempting to progress our wishes. I am sorry we do not have more time, but we are at one on this issue and the committee will be used as a vehicle to push the ideas of those attending today. We want to see the onward march of people with disabilities being led by the Irish Government, rather than reluctantly followed.
The sub-committee went into private session at 12.09 p.m. and adjourned sine die.
